Earlier today we voted on an amendment to the 2011 European Parliament calendar which sought to combine the two Strasbourg sessions proposed for September 2011 into one week. This would mean that MEPs and staff would only come to Strasbourg once in September next year and therefore for only eleven weeks in 2011 rather than the usual twelve.
Good idea, you may well think. Indeed the EPLP thought it was such a good idea that most of us were co-signatories to the amendment even though it was originally put forward by the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Group, ie the Tories.
Not only would our proposal save money in that one Strasbourg journey and stay would be cut. It would also save on carbon emissions and thereby help us all.
Alas, our eminently sensible amendment was rejected. This only goes to show the strength of the Strasbourg lobby and what an uphill task we have in even getting through the smallest changes.
Filed under: Labour Party | Tagged: ECR, european parliament, Strasbourg
I was pleased to see this issue raised. It is disgraceful that the EU continues to pollute the environment with thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions by its pointless journeys to Strasbourg while perpetually preaching about climate change and it is absurd that so much tax-payer’s money should be wasted by all the travelling back and forth during a financial crisis.
It is a great pity that this and similar EU issues are neglected by the media in the UK, especially after sections of the press made such a good job of exposing waste in Westminster. The press and the public seem to view news of the EU as secondary to so-called national news; national news which is actually just local or regional news. Things would be clearer if newspapers reported UK news as regional news and EU news simply as news, not international news. So many people still to cling onto the quaint notion that the UK is still an independent state.
Mary, please could you tell us more about the Strasbourg lobby you mentioned? Who are they and how do they manage to make any case for the EU Parliament having two buildings in different cities?